Allowed

Subikash Mukherjee v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Jul 2021Cr.M.P./1885/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Lok Adalat, Jharkhand, passed an award quashing an FIR under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court accepted a compromise where the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- to the opposite party in a private dispute regarding a flat purchase, leading to the settlement of the matter.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report Case No.311 of 2020 dated 06.07.2020 is hereby quashed and the matter stands settled.

Subikash Mukherjee Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

AWARD

¶2

BEFORE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT (Virtual)

¶3

DATED: 10.07.2021

¶4

HELD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT JHARKAHND HIGH

¶5

COURT, RANCHI.

¶6

[Organized by High Court Legal Services Committee under section 19, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Central Act).]

¶7

Cr.M.P. No.1885 of 2020

¶8

Petitioner/Appellant :- Subikash Mukherjee Versus Respondents/O.Ps. :- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Anshu Diwan

¶9

Present:-

¶10

Name of Hon’ble Judge:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR Name of Advocate Member:- Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, Standing Counsel-IV

¶11

--- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Adv.

¶12

AWARD

¶13

The matter was taken up in National Lok Adalat in virtual mode.

¶14

The dispute between the parties having been referred for determination to the National Lok Adalat and the parties have compromised/settled the case/matter up to the extent of Award.

¶15

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the opposite party no.2 has alleged that the petitioner has taken Rs.5,00,000/- from him for the purchase of a flat but the same has not been returned and accordingly, the First Information Report being Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.311 of 2020 dated 06.07.2020 has been instituted under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Both the parties are present before me and it has been submitted that they are ready to settle the dispute outside the court. The petitioner is ready to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 undertakes not to prosecute the present litigation. Although, the offence is non compoundable but it is a private transaction between the two parties and both of the parties are ready to settle their disputes. The petitioner has produced a cheque bearing Cheque No.“000218” 834229013:500519”31 dated 10.07.2021 in the name of Guru Gobind Singh, INFRACOM for the amount

¶17

¶18

of Rs.5,00,000/- and it has been tender to the counsel for the opposite party no.2 who has accepted the same in the presence of Secretary, JHALSA.

¶19

In view of above transaction of money and the settlement of the disputes, the First Information Report being Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.311 of 2020 dated 06.07.2020 is, hereby, quashed and the matter stands settled.

¶20

……………….............. …………………………..

¶21

Sign. of Hon’ble Judge Sign. of Advocate Member

¶22

(Seal of the Committee)

Subikash Mukherjee v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subikash Mukherjee v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tosirul Sk Alias Ahajaul Shekh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohit Kumar Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Most Poonam Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary H R D Department

Suraj Kumar Sharma Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shankar Kesh Vs the State of Jharkhand